Allowing courts to decide on encryption would result in haphazard approach, claims Apple lawyer

Appearing in a TV interview on Wednesday, Apple lawyer Ted Olson once again called for the U.S. Congress and not courts to decide whether the company can be made to crack a device's security, suggesting that relying on courts could deliver a piecemeal approach.

"You might have one court going one way and another court going another way," Olson told Bloomberg. "If you do this on a case-by-case basis, you're going to have different outcomes." The comment was in response to a recent argument by U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch that encryption-related cases should be judged one at a time.

Olson nevertheless cited a recent decision by a New York federal judge as supporting the view that Apple can't be forced to build a way into the iPhone of San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. In a separate case involving the iPhone of a suspected drug trafficker, New York Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that asking Apple to build and distribute a vulnerable operating system would impose an "unreasonable burden" on the company.

Apple has a reponsibility to protect the privacy of its customers, Olson added.

"We're talking about the rights of Apple to make sure its iPhone has the integrity that it carefully built into it," he said. "Everyone has civil rights in this country, not just those accused of crime."

The debate in the San Bernardino case intensified on Tuesday as people like FBI Director James Comey and Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell testified in front of a House Judiciary Committee. The company has also filed a formal objection to the Central District of California's order to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone, making reference to the New York case.

14 Comments

cpsro 3236 comments · 14 Years

About 8 years ago

Our thoughts are "warrant-proof", too.
So far.

Urei1620 88 comments · 8 Years

sog35 said:

But I guess the FBI, President, DOJ ,want the USA to be a police state.

We (US) are already there. Question is, can we fight back against the FBI, local police and NSA.

sog35 said:

Do I want my conversations with lawyers, my doctor, my priest, my 5 year old child to be open to the FBI? HELL NO.

Your priest might not want his conversations with your child to be open to the FBI either, at least not for a few years. :p

christophb 1479 comments · 15 Years

Wasn't so long ago that a certain CEO was mocked here for saying this,

“I don’t think it is Silicon Valley’s decision to make about whether encryption is the right thing to do. I understand Tim Cook’s decision, but I don’t think it’s his decision to make”… I personally think that this is an issue that should be decided by the American people and Congress, not by companies,”

Now that it is Apple's legal position, everyone is on-board. I'm digging on the irony.

matrix077 868 comments · 9 Years

christophb said:

Wasn't so long ago that a certain CEO was mocked here for saying this,
“I don’t think it is Silicon Valley’s decision to make about whether encryption is the right thing to do. I understand Tim Cook’s decision, but I don’t think it’s his decision to make”… I personally think that this is an issue that should be decided by the American people and Congress, not by companies,”

Now that it is Apple's legal position, everyone is on-board. I'm digging on the irony.

You have reading comprehension issue then. Encryption is a good and right thing. No question asked. It secures our privacy. But if government want companies to crack their own software, or make back door, this serious issue need to be made into law by Congress, not decided on a whim by government.